PS: I hope that a fundamental RFC like addrarch will be available soon!! If we keep this infinite loop going people will use 2373 and we'll end up in a lose lose situation.
This discussion should have no affect on the publication of the addr arch RFC, which is currently in the IESG awaiting approval for publication as a Draft Standard.
We have quite a strong consensus that we need to keep the site-local address allocation in the addressing architecture, regardless of how/if we later restrict the use of these addresses. This discussion concerns what we should say about the _use_ of site-local unicast addresses in the scoped addressing architecture (which is still an I-D). Margaret -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
